The Basis for Rationality

I was asked to supply a theme for this conference, and the theme I chose was this: 'The first step for a twenty-first-century science of origins is to separate materialist philosophy from empirical science." That is the basis not just for a science of origins; it is the basis for a proper understanding of rationality, To materialists, rationality starts with the realization that in the beginning were the particles and that mind itself is a product of matter. That makes it difficult to understand how there can even be knowledge of objective reality in science. 

In chapter six of Reason in the Balance I compared two prominent philosophers, John Searle and Richard Rorty. Searle argues that there are objective standards of value in academic life and that mind is not reducible to matter. Yet he also insists that all thinking must be based on materialistic and Darwinian assumptions, thus undercutting his own conclusions. 

Rorty has a poorer philosophy, but he is far more discerning about the implications of materialism and Darwinism. Rorty notes that Darwinian selection promotes only what is useful for survival and reproduction and concludes that "the idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increased prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass-a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck ''When materialism is fully understood, objective truth goes into the trash can along with objective morality. 

The postmodernist irrationalism that is sweeping our universities is thus the logical outcome of the scientific rationalism that prepared the ground by undermining the metaphysical basis for confidence in objective truth. A wrong view of mind has come out of science because science has become confused with materialist philosophy. And that wrong view has become a compulsory dogma for every discipline and for the intellectual culture in general. 

Richard Dickerson, a professor of molecular biology at UCLA, provides a good example of how the basis of modern science has been articulated. He states as rule number one of scientific investigation, "Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes without invoking the supernatural." 

That is a rational project, but another sentence has to be added for the rule to make any sense, and that is "At some point we'll stop to audit the books and see how far we've gone." For example, if your investment adviser suggests plunging wildly in the corn futures market, then at some point you will want to know if you have anything left or whether you have made any money. If he tells you, "Let's just always assume that corn futures go up in value, " you know you are giving your money to somebody who has lost touch with reality. 

Dickerson's first rule requires that at the end of the day you have to come in without a materialist bias and analyze what has been happening. You have been trying to explain the complexity of biology by mutation and selection; now what does the evidence really show? How successful have you been? Does the fossil record fit when you look at it objectively and without a Darwinian bias? We know the answer to that is no. We ask, "Does finch beak variation really show how you can get finches in the first place?" No, of course not. Neo-Darwinism is a failed project-give it up! "Not yet! " you say. "We're still trying to succeed." Good luck to you, friend, but the evaluation for now is you are not making it. It is what in tenure cases we call the midcareer review; you have not published and you are going to perish! 

The naturalists say, "Let's protect naturalism for a while longer to give us a fair chance to succeed. "It was reasonable to say that a few decades ago. But now it is time to audit the books. 

Most philosophers, literary critics and Supreme Court justices assume the materialist picture of reality, even if they are not consciously aware of it. As Paul Feyerabend put it, "Scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method; they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal—argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying—to achieve their aims," With these tactics they have been successful in imposing a naturalistic religious philosophy on the entire culture.